Pursuant to Practice Book '2-35, the
undersigned, duly-appointed reviewing committee of the Statewide Grievance Committee,
conducted a hearing at the Superior Court, 300 Grand Street, Waterbury, Connecticut on
September 3, 1998. The hearing addressed the record of the complaint filed on March 12,
1998, and the probable cause determination filed by the Hartford/New Britain Judicial
District, Geographical Areas 12, 15, 16 & 17 Grievance Panel on April 14, 1998,
finding that there existed probable cause that the Respondent violated Rule 1.4 of the
Rules of Professional Conduct.

Notice of the hearing was mailed to the
Complainant and to the Respondent on July 23, 1998. The Respondent appeared and gave
testimony. The Complainant, who resides in Florida, advised that she would be unable to
attend the hearing. An exhibit was received into evidence.

This reviewing committee finds the
following facts by clear and convincing evidence:

The Complainant contacted the Respondent
in June of 1997 to pursue a class action suit against John Dempsey Hospital for submitting
fraudulent charges to Medicare. The Complainant provided the Respondent with documents in
support of her claim. Thereafter, by letter dated July 1, 1997, the Respondent agreed to
represent the Complainant in the matter and provided the Complainant with a written
contingency fee agreement, which the Complainant signed and returned to the Respondent.
The Complainant was, thereafter, unable to communicate with the Respondent. The
Complainant wrote a letter to the Respondent on September 24, 1997, and left messages for
the Respondent on October 17, 1997, December 1, 1997 and December 28, 1997. The
Complainant wrote a second letter to the Respondent on January 15, 1998. The Respondent
failed to return any of the Complainant's telephone calls or respond to her letters. The
Complainant's daughter, who resides in Connecticut, also attempted to communicate with the
Respondent. The Respondent, however, never returned any of the Complainant's daughter's
telephone calls.

The committee also considered the
following evidence:

The Respondent maintained that he
encountered two problems during his investigation of the Complainant's claim, preventing
him from immediately commencing a lawsuit on the Complainant's behalf. The Respondent
testified, however, that he never advised the Complainant of the difficulties he was
encountering with her claim. The Respondent also acknowledged that he did not respond to
the Complainant's telephone calls or letters. The Respondent maintained that he did not
communicate with the Complainant because he had not determined if or how the Complainant's
claim could be pursued. The Respondent stated that upon receipt of the grievance
complaint, he forwarded the Complainant a copy of the file and in his answer to the
complaint advised that he would not be filing an action on the Complainant's behalf.

This reviewing committee concludes by
clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent engaged in ethical misconduct in
connection with his representation of the Complainant in this matter. The Respondent's
failure to respond to the Complainant's numerous letters and telephone calls from July of
1997 until March of 1998, when this grievance complaint was filed, constitutes a violation
of his duty to adequately communicate with his client. The record clearly reflects that
the Respondent failed to keep the Complainant reasonably informed regarding the status of
her case and failed to promptly comply with the Complainant's reasonable requests for
information regarding her case, in violation of Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct. Accordingly, this reviewing committee reprimands the Respondent for violating
Rule 1.4(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.